Hi,
Thanks for the response.
Isn't the binary packaging of a .deb file (including the .deb's list of dependencies) the responsibility of the individual distribution in question?
http://gcompris.net/ does not provide official Ubuntu .deb file downloads.
the source code .tar.gz at http://sourceforge.net/projects/gcompris/files/ does not have this bug.
Only the .deb from Ubuntu's repositories (and maybe Debian, I wouldn't know) has this bug.
How would it be gcompris' responsibility to correct a minor _packaging_ error on the part of Ubuntu with Ubuntu's gcompris .deb package?
...Well, I'll ask this since this is edging on territory I am unfamiliar with:
If I go ahead and take the five minutes to fix the .deb package so it correctly lists python-numeric as a depen, where would I go about submitting it?
Hi,
Thanks for the response.
Isn't the binary packaging of a .deb file (including the .deb's list of dependencies) the responsibility of the individual distribution in question?
http:// gcompris. net/ does not provide official Ubuntu .deb file downloads.
the source code .tar.gz at http:// sourceforge. net/projects/ gcompris/ files/ does not have this bug.
Only the .deb from Ubuntu's repositories (and maybe Debian, I wouldn't know) has this bug.
How would it be gcompris' responsibility to correct a minor _packaging_ error on the part of Ubuntu with Ubuntu's gcompris .deb package?
...Well, I'll ask this since this is edging on territory I am unfamiliar with:
If I go ahead and take the five minutes to fix the .deb package so it correctly lists python-numeric as a depen, where would I go about submitting it?